1.Comes now the defendant to state his case and ask the court for a Directed Verdict over turning the Verdict currently in place. The defendant asks for a new verdict of innocent in his favor and without prejudice or limitation to all issues of guilt that were and are related to this issue.

2.Officer Little under direct cross examination gave inaccurate testimony in front of the jury. He repeatedly stated while under oath that it was a 4” heel not the 2” heel that required notification and opportunity for the removal of said shoes prior to taking of both the Walk and Turn and the One Leg Stand field sobriety tests.

3.I submit that the National Highway and Safety Administration standard requires “individuals wearing heels more than two inches high should be given the opportunity to remove their shoes.”

4.This as a fact is indisputably a part of the National Highway and Safety Administration Standard.

5.This I submit was known by officer Little or should have been known by any officer having more 50 hours National Highway and Safety Administration Standardized Field Sobriety Testing training within the last 24 months.

6.His offering of inaccurate information in direct contradiction of the Standard and the direct under oath cross examination and assertion of the defendant as to an inaccurate information as fact was to say the least wantonly prejudicial without foundation.

7.Without a crediblely administered complete Field Sobriety Test the States case rest on nothing. They presented no other evidence of the Defendant’s intoxication, there for the verdict in the case should be overturned without prejudice. The state misrepresented either through malice of forethought or ignorance either way their prosecution was based on misinformation and not factual evidence.

8.As an officer of the court, Officer Little should be held to a higher standard as a professional presuming to give professional reliable testimony in a court of law under oath.

9.Officer Little failed that test in that he repeatedly asserted inaccurate testimony either through knowing deception or an unacceptable level of ignorance.

11.When asked had the Defendant blown (a steady tone) for 15-16 seconds during the test administered in regard to this issue, Officer Taylor 913 repeatedly offered testimony conflicting with his Supplemental report signed by T. Taylor 913 on each page of the two page report and dated 5/18/03.

12.This sworn testimony was prejudicial in front of the jury. The defendant repeatedly asked Officer Taylor 913 to confirm that the defendant had blown for 15 seconds and he repeatedly refused to confirm his signed and approved Supplemental Report dated 5/18/04.

13.Without Officer Taylor’s denial of his previous report, the state has no evidence of a refusal. The defendant clearly blew 15-16 seconds per officer Taylor’s singed and approved report dated 5/18/03 just after the incident and the State’s own representative from the State’s Division of Health, Breath Alcohol Department testified that a 15 second blow fell to the upper end of the credible range she reported as 7-17 seconds for the average blow.

14.In that Officer Taylor 913 had in effect sworn to the facts in his Supplemental Report and then contradicted said report again in Sworn Testimony in front of the jury his action are borderline perjurious. And the evidence he provided was therefore suspect and without foundation.

15.As an officer of the court, Officer Taylor 913 should be held to a higher standard as a professional presuming to give professional reliable testimony in a court of law under oath.

16.In that the defense had no way of knowing in advance that the prosecution was going to purport misinformation and what can be construed as outright lies or contradictions of previously reported facts the defendant can not be held to a verdict based on a false prosecution. Therefore the defendant requests the court enter a directed verdict in favor the defendant’s innocents without prejudice or limitation on the issue and all matters related to this issue.

17.In a closely consider case on which the jury ponder for considerable amount of time, this wantonly and unashamedly prejudicial conduct had a deleterious effect on the defendant’s case and therefore I ask that you to take judicial exception to the verdict and issue a directed verdict of innocents in the defendant’s favor.

18.Because of the above referenced unreliable and potentially felonious wantonly and unashamedly prejudicial testimony of the state’s sworn officers of the court in front of the jury hearing the case, I here by ask that the court take judicial exception to the verdict and render a new verdict of innocents without limitation in the defendants favor including all issues and connected issues that were and are related to this issue before the court.

Tuesday, February 3, 2004

As I referenced previously with my appeals, my petition for a writ of certiorari and in my prior correspondents with you and because I know you never took the time to look at them, I NOW include for the record:

1.A copy of the trial transcript (SD26269.doc) where Officer Taylor contradicts his prior sworn police report. He testified I did not blow for a continuous 15 seconds.

2.A copy of Officer Taylor’s sworn police report[3] dated 05-18-03. Taylor confirmed on page two of his sworn report, I blew for 15 seconds without stopping, “Jeep started again watching his watch and stopped after blowing approximately 15 seconds.” No one can blow for 20 seconds without stopping. If it is attempted on the DATAMASTER as programmed for the State of Missouri (5/17/03) it will ALWAYS return an “Invalid result” every-time. There is NO way, given the instructions in Taylor’s sworn police report, anyone could pass the test. Anyone following those instructions will fail with an “Invalid result” every-time. The police report is consistent with verifiable facts, i.e., the “invalid result”. Taylor’s sworn trial testimony is not is consistent with verifiable facts; it will not produce an “invalid result”. He thus gave false testimony. The Prosecutor[4] and the Police[5] clearly presented false EVIENCE to convict me!!!!!!

If there is anything further I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.

Thank you in advance.

“Time is of the essence”

Dave@DGJeep.com
David G. Jeep

IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS SOUTHERN DISTRICT

STATE OF MISSOURI, )

Respondent, )

v. ) S. D. No. 26269

DAVID G. JEEP, )

Appellant. )

IN THE CAMDEN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

TWENTY-SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, ASSOCIATE DIVISION

The Honorable Bruce Colyer, Judge

STATE OF MISSOURI, )

Plaintiff, )

v. ) Cause No. CR203-1336M

DAVID G. JEEP, )

Defendant. )

TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL

TIM TAYLOR, called as a witness in behalf of the STATE, being duly sworn, testified as follows:

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. JEEP: Excerpt starting page 118

Q. I mean that's what you said. I blew for 15 seconds. How did you know I was blowing 15 seconds?

A. Approximately 15 seconds.

Q. Approximately 15 seconds. Okay.

A. Uh-huh.

Q. So I did have a solid tone for approximately 15 seconds?

A. No. Actually your take (phonetic spelling) cut out during the 15 seconds.

Q. The tape (phonetic spelling) cut out?

A. Your breath sample.

Q. So it wasn't 15 seconds; how long was it approximately?

A. You blew approximately for 15 seconds.

Q. Okay. So I blew for approximately 15 seconds at a solid tone?

A. No. There was--There was a break in--

Q. How long of a solid tone did I blow for approximately?

A. I really don't recall.

Q. Was there a break in the 15 seconds? Did I stop and start in the 15 seconds?

A. Yes.

Q. That's not what your--I mean you stated here in your supplement report here--have you read it right here, this last sentence, "Jeep started the test, watching his watch. After blowing for approximately 15 seconds"--

A. Uh-huh.

Q. So I blew 15 seconds, but it wasn't a blow; it was a--

A. I don't think I stated that it was a continuous blow for 15 seconds, no.

Q. Okay. So it was just a blow, I guess. I don't know--We don't know what it was. Start and stopped. Okay.

And you also said that I blew earlier on in his--in one of these instances, huffing and puffing for five seconds approximately each time?

A. I don't know--

Q. Earlier testimony.

A. --know what you mean by huffing and puffing.

Q. Well, I mean you said I blew, starting and stopping approximately five--five seconds each time.

A. Approximately five seconds. About the longest

that you would blow was approximately five seconds, yes.

[1] The Court’s bias for a woman’s rights over a man’s rights with unequal protection of the Law, family law.

[2] A Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Jeep v United States of America “Opposed to Immunity” currently on file in the Supreme Court clerk’s office, 8th District Court of appeals Appeal: 10-1947, U.S. Federal Court Eastern District of Missouri Case No. Case 4:10-CV-101-TCM -- State Court Case No.: 03FC-10670M, Missouri Court of Appeals eastern District ED84021, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Missouri Jeep v. Jones et al, 4:07-cv-01116-CEJ, 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 07-2614, Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115 & State Court Case # CR203-1336M, Missouri Court of Appeals Southern District SD26269, U.S. District Court Western District of Missouri 07-0506-CV-W-SOW Jeep v Bennett, et al, 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 08-1823 (http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/).

[3] Re-enact the events as described by Taylor’s police report. First see if you can find ANYONE that can sustain a blow for 20 seconds without stopping, as I was told I had to do. It is humanly impossible. And secondly tell me what kind of report you get from the DATAMASTER as programmed for the State of Missouri (5/17/03) after maintaining a steady tone for as long as humanly possible. Lets say 15 seconds (+/-) as I did. It will be an “invalid” result. The police report dated 5-18-03 is accurate and verifiable; his trial testimony is false. Anybody that is given the instructions, I was given as documented in Taylor’s police report WILL FAIL THE TEST and thus be marked as a REFUSAL, loose their license for two years and be dammed in any pending divorce and or criminal trial. The police in Osage Beach, The State of Missouri Department of Revenue, that has the authority and responsibility to reviews these suspensions, neither of them know what a refusal is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I told them that during the appeal. If the State of Missouri had even a clue as to what constituted a refusal this should be a Brady Violation also, BRADY V. MARYLAND, 373 U. S. 83 (1963)

[4]Due Process of Law as defined by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), says: “We now hold that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” Page 373 U. S. 87

As I referenced previously with my appeals, my petition for a writ of certiorari and in my prior correspondents with you and because I know you never took the time to look at them, I NOW include for the record:

1.A copy of the trial transcript (SD26269.doc), where Officer Little gave false testimony

2.A copy of the “U.S. Department of Transportation DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing Participant Manual” 2002 Edition (NHSTA) Page VIII-11, Section 4. Test Conditions, Second Paragraph, last sentence that proves his testimony to be false. Note I asked specifically for this information in pretrial motions[3]. The Prosecutor[4] and the Police[5] clearly presented false EVIENCE to convict me!!!!!!

If there is anything further I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.

Thank you in advance.

“Time is of the essence”

Dave@DGJeep.com
David G. Jeep

IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS SOUTHERN DISTRICT

STATE OF MISSOURI, )

Respondent, )

v. ) S. D. No. 26269

DAVID G. JEEP, )

Appellant. )

IN THE CAMDEN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

TWENTY-SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, ASSOCIATE DIVISION

The Honorable Bruce Colyer, Judge

STATE OF MISSOURI, )

Plaintiff, )

v. ) Cause No. CR203-1336M

DAVID G. JEEP, )

Defendant. )

TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL

ALEX LITTLE, called as a witness in behalf of the STATE, being duly sworn, testified as follows:

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. JEEP: Excerpt starting page 84

Q. The walk-and-turn and the balance test, the standards for applying that test, do they reference anything about footwear?

A. Yes. They say that if a person has on footwear that has like greater than four-inch heels, then you can allow them to take their footwear off, if they want to, to perform the test.

Q. Is it a four-inch heel?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Or a two-inch heel?

A. It's a--If I'm not mistaken, it's a four-inch heel.

Q. Do you have that in writing anywhere?

A. Not on me now, no.

MR. JEEP: Do you have that? I asked for this earlier, Judge. No one was able to present me with it or they told me to look for it, and I looked under the NHTSA, I called NHTSA, they wanted me to buy it from them--

THE COURT: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. No.

MR. JEEP: Excuse me. They--The--

THE COURT: You asked the question, he's answered it.

MR. JEEP: Okay.

BY MR. JEEP:

Q. There's no place where this is standardized? Do you have in your--in writing anyplace?

A. I would assume I had it with the information that they gave me in the academy.

Q. Okay. And you think it's four-inch?

A. Yes, sir.

[1] The Court’s bias for a woman’s rights over a man’s rights with unequal protection of the Law, family law.

[2] A Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Jeep v United States of America “Opposed to Immunity” currently on file in the Supreme Court clerk’s office, 8th District Court of appeals Appeal: 10-1947, U.S. Federal Court Eastern District of Missouri Case No. Case 4:10-CV-101-TCM -- State Court Case No.: 03FC-10670M, Missouri Court of Appeals eastern District ED84021, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Missouri Jeep v. Jones et al, 4:07-cv-01116-CEJ, 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 07-2614, Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115 & State Court Case # CR203-1336M, Missouri Court of Appeals Southern District SD26269, U.S. District Court Western District of Missouri 07-0506-CV-W-SOW Jeep v Bennett, et al, 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 08-1823 (http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/).

[3] “Suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused who has requested it violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” Pp.8 866-88. BRADY V. MARYLAND, 373 U. S. 83 (1963)

[4]Due Process of Law as defined by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), says: “We now hold that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” Page 373 U. S. 87

GoFundMe

Contact Form

About Me

“Where
an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is
safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.

Where
there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho’ from an opposite
cause.

Government
is instituted to protect property of every sort, as well that which lies in the
various rights of individuals as that which the term particularly expresses.
This being the end of government, that alone is a just government which
impartially secures to every man whatever is his own.” James
Madison “Essays for the National Gazette 1791- 1792”

The
strength of human civilization is its ability to OVERCOME our purely animal
instincts… CO-OPERATE for the GREATER GOOD!!Human civilization is the only species on this planet capable of
overcoming the animal instinct of Herbert Spencer’s discredited “survival of
the fittest.”This ability is what makes
us human, what makes us dominant and what separates us from the animals.

The
United States of America was FOUNDED on the "Love of Virtue."The Founding Fathers based their
constitutional assertions on the love of virtue as defined by Montesquieu’s
republican government’s essential ingredient, the willingness to put the
interests of the community ahead of private interests.We need to remember the, at the time,
“REVOLUTIONARY” “Love of Virtue” that this country was founded upon….